SEO Made Me Do It! Why Buyers Alter Web Content
May 16th 2007 07:03
I realized just today what often motivates site owners, editors, or managers to alter web content--even in violation of clearly stated clauses which they agree to when purchasing a particular type of license for that content: SEO makes them do it!
Search Engine Optimization apparently reigns supreme in the world of internet publishing today. In many--if not the majority of--cases, it matters not to the individuals who run these websites whether or not the writing they post is particularly good. It generally need only be competent. And that's fine with me, if this is what they want or need for their websites. I have no quarrel with that. Why, I might even be willing to consider writing SEO articles myself at some point--and actually I have considered it--though not very seriously, since it doesn't tend to pay very well, and I'd much rather do more inspired writing, writing where I have the freedom to say what I want to say the way I want to say it.
While SEO writing may not be my favorite kind, I do recognize that there are many individuals who are very good at it and who can actually create quality articles while seamlessly incorporating the prescribed number of keywords and keyword phrases into their articles in all the right places. And I applaud them. They are filling a need, and they are doing it well.
The real problem is when the two worlds collide. When an article which is written for the express purpose of saying something and saying it well is offered for posting to a buyer's website through the purchase of a "usage" license by a site such as Constant Content, that article is sold "as is." The buyer is not authorized to change the work in any way. This presents a dilemma for the buyer whose site uses SEO articles. Since the article wasn't originally written with SEO in mind, it generally doesn't contain quite enough key words or key word phrases in its present form. It would only take a few changes here and there to make it work...
But this is precisely where the integrity of the original article is compromised. It's just too easy to do--and entirely too tempting for many buyers to resist.
It became clear to me just this evening, as I looked over the criteria for submitting articles to a particular SEO site--which just happens to be the same site that purchased the usage license for one of my altered articles (as I learned through a Google Alert)--that this was the reason for the changes they made. No sooner had this site made the purchase, then their content editors went right to work. They immediately proceeded to add an entirely new introductory paragraph to the beginning of the article in direct violation of their usage license. And SEO was the reason for the change. They needed to have enough repetitions of the keyword phrase in the article's first paragraph. SEO made them do it!
I hadn't realized it until that moment. Here I'd been furiously typing up a message earlier this afternoon, indignantly proclaiming to C-C how this site had lowered the quality of my article, and on and on and on, without having the slightest inkling what was really going on. I understand now.
Of course, none of this changes the fact that this website violated its usage license, and only time will tell what will happen. I am not really certain precisely how C-C will handle the issue.* But I do know one thing: At Constant Content, they don't like it when clients violate the limitations of their usage licenses. And I must admit that, as a writer who works very hard to produce high quality content, I don't like it either. I don't like the integrity of my work to be compromised.
Where do we go from here? I admit that I really don't know. There's little question that SEO is here to stay. There's even less question that it's in very high demand. Yet I truly hope this doesn't mean that literary integrity will not be able to peacefully co-exist with it.
Till next time,
Jeanne
*UPDATE: Since this post was written, Constant Content has notified the offending website, the site's administrator was very apologetic, and he has since changed the article back to its original form. This is good news for all of us writers who care very much about the integrity of our work! Bravo for C-C and for this site, which, unfortunately, must remain nameless!
Did you enjoy this post? Don't leave me lonely--Please comment!
| 31 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Wendi
Comment by Jeanne Dininni
Writer's Notes
Good to see you! I completely agree! How difficult would it be to send a message to the author about it?Though I suspect that not all buyers even bother to read the rules regarding what they may and may not do with the various types of content licenses. Of course, I know that's no excuse, because they should
However, C-C's rules seem to be pretty stringent as far as not allowing the writer to give permission to the buyer to make changes if the license purchased is a usage license; but I suppose the article in question could always be revised and resubmitted as a free-content private request (since its already been paid for).
Thanks for dropping by!
Jeanne